UNDERSTANDING CULTURE, SOCIETY AND POLITICS

LESSON: SOCIAL STRATIFICATION (WEEK 3)

Introduction
In a study made by Father Lynch in Bicol he concluded that there were only two
social class categories of people: the rich and the poor. The middle-class was often
regarded as either small or non-existent. Today, if we are going to ask, “How many social
classes do we have now?” The answer would probably different. Scholars find that
identifying the social class people belongs to is difficult because it is too complex.

What is Social Stratification?

Social stratification is a system by which a society ranks categories of people in
a hierarchy according to power, wealth, and prestige (Macionis 2012: 224). Power,
wealth, and prestige are referred to as social desirables, or rewards of social positions
of statuses. Wealth pertains to ownership or control of resource. Power is the ability to
compel obedience or control a number of people. Prestige refers to social recognition
and deference. People in different positions have different access to wealth, power, and
prestige. These differences in society give rise to social inequality.
Four Principles of Social Stratification
Macionis pointed out the four principles of social stratification:
1. Social stratification is a trait of society, not simply a reflection of individual
differences. Many of us think of social standing in terms of personal talent and effort,
and as a result, we often exaggerate the extent to which we control our own fate. Did a
higher percentage of the first-class passengers on the Titanic survive because they were
better swimmers than second- and third-class passengers? No. They did better because
of their privileged position on the ship, which gave them first access to the lifeboats.
Similarly, children born into wealthy families are more likely than children born into
poverty to enjoy good health, do well in school, succeed in a career, and live a long life.
Neither the rich nor the poor created social stratification, yet this system shapes the
lives of us all.

2. Social stratification carries over from generation to generation. We have only to

look at how parents pass their social position on to their children to see that
stratification is a trait of societies rather than individuals. Some people, especially in
high-income societies, do experience social mobility, a change in position within the
social hierarchy. Social mobility may be upward or downward that is called vertical
mobility. For instance, we celebrate the achievements of rare individuals such as
Christina Aguilera and Jay-Z, both of whom rose from modest beginnings to fame and
fortune. Some people move downward because of business failures, unemployment, or
illness. More often people move horizontally; they switch from one job to another at
about the same social level. The social standing of most people remains much the same
over their lifetime.

3. Social stratification is universal but variable. Social stratification is found

everywhere. Yet what is unequal and how unequal it is varies from one society to

1
another. In some societies, inequality is mostly a matter of prestige; in others, wealth or
power is the key element of difference. In addition, some societies contain more
inequality than others.

4. Social stratification involves not just inequality but beliefs as well. Any system
of inequality not only gives some people more than others but also define these
arrangements as fair. Just as the details of inequality vary, the explanations of why
people should be unequal differ from society to society.

There are two types of social stratification systems. Closed systems allow for
little change in social position, while open systems, permit much more social mobility.
Closed systems are called caste systems, and more open systems are called class
systems. An example of a closed system is a caste system is social stratification based
on ascription, or birth. India’s caste system and apartheid, or separation of the races in
South Africa, are examples of a caste system.

An Illustration: India
Many of the world’s societies, most of them agrarian, are caste systems. In India,
much of the population still lives in traditional villages where the caste system continues
to be part of everyday life. The Indian system identifies four major castes (or varnas,
from a Sanskrit word that means “color”): Brahman, Kshatriya, Vaishya, and Sudra. On
the local level, each of these is composed of hundreds of subcaste groups (jatis).

From birth, a caste system determines the direction of a person’s life. First, with
the exception of farming, which is open to everyone, families in each caste perform one
type of work, as priests, soldiers, barbers, leather workers, street sweepers, and so on.

Second, a caste system demands that people marry others of the same ranking.
If people were to enter into “mixed” marriages with members of other castes, what rank
would their children hold? Sociologists call this pattern of marrying within a social
category endogamous marriage (endo- stems from the Greek word for “within”).
According to tradition—today, this practice is rare and is found only in remote rural
areas—Indian parents select their children’s future marriage partners, often before the
children reach their teens.

Third, caste guides everyday life by keeping people in the company of “their own
kind.” Norms reinforce this practice by teaching, for example, that a “purer” person of a
higher caste is “polluted” by contact with someone of lower standing.

Fourth, caste systems rest on powerful cultural beliefs. Indian culture is built on
the Hindu tradition that doing the caste’s life work and accepting an arranged marriage
are moral duties.

While an example of an opens system would be a class system, in contrast, is

social stratification based on both birth and individual achievement. The system is
common in industrial societies. In some societies such as the United Kingdom and
Japan, social stratification mixes caste and class (Macionis 2012: 228).

2
 Although most modern industrial societies do not have formal stratification
systems, they do have a type of social stratification called a social class system. Unlike
estates and castes, these social classes are not supported by any legal or religious
sanctions. They are not clear-cut, definitely delimited groups into which every person in
the community can be placed. The fact that social classes are not perfectly clear-cut
entities is proven by the inability of social scientists to come to any general agreement
on just how many of them should be recognized as existing. In a democratic industrial
society, social status is a continuum, with individuals and families scattered along it
from top to bottom. If we divide people on this social scale into two, three, or more social
classes, we must do so arbitrarily.

Social scientists also have difficulty deciding just what criteria should be used in
determining social status. Some would place an individual (or family) in a given class
entirely on the basis of economic considerations. Those who take this point of view
usually put their chief emphasis on income. Others, probably the majority, would
determine the status of an individual by general social standing—that is, by whether
the community, on the basis of various criteria, places the individual high or low on the
social scale. Income would be only one factor. Some of the common stratification
hierarchies are shown in Figure 1. The combination of hierarchies—education,
occupation, and income—forms an individual’s socioeconomic status.

Figure 1. Common Stratification Hierarchy

Source: Macionis (2012)

Theories of Social Stratification

Why does social stratification exist at all? There are different theories available
which explain why social stratification occurs. Although, they are different, they all
agree that social stratifications exist in society.

A. Functionalist perspective
According to the structural-functional approach, social inequality exists because it
plays a vital part in the continued existence of society. Kingsley Davis and Wilbert Moore
(1945) argue that the more important a position is to society, the more rewards a society
attaches to it. Rewarding important work with income, prestige, and power encourages

3
people to do these jobs and to work better, longer, and harder. Macionis (2012: 231—
233) summarizes the criticisms of Davis-Moore Theory as follows:

• How do we assess the importance of a particular occupation? Do rewards actually

reflect the contribution someone makes to society? Do corporate executives, for
example, deserve mega-salaries for their contributions to society?
• Living in a society that places so much emphasis on money, we tend to
overestimate the importance of high-paying work. How does one see the value of
work that is not oriented toward making money?
• It likewise ignores how social inequality may promote conflict and even outright
revolution. This criticism leads us to the social-conflict approach...

B. Social conflict perspective

Marxist social-conflict perspective

Social conflict analysis draws on the ideas of Karl Marx and Max Weber (Macionis
2012: 232–234). Rather than viewing social stratification as benefiting society as a
whole, it emphasizes how it benefits some people and disadvantages others. According
to Marx, social stratification is created and maintained by one group in order to protect
and enhance its own economic interests. Since stratification is not essential in a
classless society. As expected, the Marxist view is criticized for denying the Davis-Moore
theory: that a system of unequal rewards is necessary to place talented people in the
right jobs and to motivate them to work hard.

Weberian social conflict perspective

Max Weber claimed that social stratification involves three distinct dimensions
of inequality: class, social status or prestige, and power (Macionis 2012: 234–235). A
public-school teacher might exercise great power as a source of knowledge and wisdom
in the community yet have little wealth or social prestige. Influenced by Weber’s ideas,
sociologists use the term socioeconomic status (SES) to refer to a composite ranking
based on various dimensions of social inequality, and not only on economic position or
class as Marx argued.

C. Symbolic Interactionist perspective

The symbolic-interaction approach, a micro-level analysis and influenced by the
ideas of Weber, explains that we size up people by looking for clues to their social
standing. We can know about a person’s position in society through status symbol,
anything than can give an idea as to what stratum an individual belongs to. Among
some groups, conspicuous consumption, or buying and displaying products that
make a “statement” about social class, happens. For Thorstein Veblen (1953, orig.
1899, cited in Macionis 2012: 235–236; 546) who introduced the concept,
conspicuous consumption involves people buying expensive products not because they
need them but to show off their wealth.

4
Figure 2. Summary of Theories of Social Stratification
Source: Macionis (2012).

References
Candelaria, Anne Lan, Jose Jowel Canuday and Czarina Saloma. Understanding
Culture, Society and Politics: A Reader. Pasig City: Department of
Education. 2016.

Candelaria, Anne Lan, Jose Jowel Canuday and Czarina Saloma. Understanding
Culture, Society and Politics: A Teacher Guide. Pasig City: Department of
Education. 2016.

Hunt, Elgin & David C. Colander. Social Science: An Introduction to the Study of
Society. New York: Routledge.

Macionis, John J. Sociology. 14th ed. New Jersey: Pearson Education, Inc. 2012.